Les - do you think living things today are the exactly the same as those that lived, say, fifty million years ago? If not, do you think that in some odd way the might just have ... evolved?

alan, germany,

Most commentators seem to be well versed in the evolutionary arguments and what evolutionists say about creation but I have not yet read one who shows good knowledge of the real science which these creationists are doing.
Do you not know that the theory of evolution is - inarguably - 'in crisis'?

Les, Ramsgate, UK

The theory of evolution is not only denigrated by so-called creationists but it is now being attacked by significant non-creationist scientists. I presume you have read the books of Michael Denton and Michael Behe, and there are the many telling admissions of extremely prominent evolution apologists

Les, Ramsgate, UK

The theory of evolution is dead and we are observing the frantic nervous twitching of the corpse :- )
The essential problem is that dumping evolution leaves no alternative except 'God', and that is unacceptable, hence the clinging to a lost cause.

Les, Ramsgate, UK

Days of creation in the Bible are 7000 thousand years in length. Gen 1v1 says In the beginning, that beginning could well be millions of years ago,the creative days come later to an earth that is millions of years old. We are still living in the 7th day.soon the 1000yr reign of Christ will begin

P Timings, Hampton,

@ russell, indiana, usa

I totally agree, people are too caught up in the world view that life was bound to happen, no it bloody well wasn't!

Phil, Surr,

Opponents of evolution have no grasp of the time-span involved. For example, some say they've never seen sparrows turn into bullfinches. In their lifetime!!!
A new species might evolve in, say, a million !!!!! years. (A mere 2000 years since Jesus).
Creationists are trying to make monkeys out of us

alan, germany,

'Intelligent Design' is not creationism, nor 'an assertion' nor an argument from mere complexity. It's the theory that if you can empirically identify SPECIFIED complexity and ALSO eliminate chance and necessity as sufficient causes, then you can infer design. Research and testing are indeed done.

Thomas Shipp, Plymouth, Devon

'Intelligent design' is not 'an assertion', nor creationism, nor an argument from mere complexity. It's the theory that if you can empirically identify SPECIFIED complexity and ALSO eliminate chance and necessity as sufficient causes, you can infer design. Research and testing are indeed carried out.

Thomas Shipp, Plymouth, Devon

The problem with Reiss's comments was his statement that creationism is a "world-view" that somehow deserves respect . Indeed, regardless of what people think about evolution, all the geological, cosmological and palaeontological evidence PROVES that the earth and universe are billions of years old.

JONATHAN CASTRO, Guildford, Surrey

Children should never be taught to respect beliefs, only the right to have them. It is not only acceptable but essential to challenge theories and opinions. The concept of creationism should be taught wih the theory of evolution. Neither should be taught as fact. Teach HOW to think not WHAT to.

Andy, China,

I see that the Vatican has organised with the Gregorian university in Rome and Notre Dame in Indiana, a conference to be held in March next year: "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 years after 'The Origin of Species'". I hope evolutionists will be as open!

John Wallace, Glasgow, Scotland

Without a time machine the evidence for evolution, while compelling, is circumstantial. At the same time Science, as with mathemetics, is based on unproven assumptons. In addition to which most of Christianity is not creationist and can accept Big Bangs and evolution.

The author presumes too much

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Evolution by natural selection is such a beautiful explanation of life,it blows instant creation and Noah,s ark clean out the water. Myths are interesting but Darwins work surpasses them ,and gives a grandeur to our place in the natural world.

iain rae, tunbridge wells, t.w.

Respecting the rights of others to believe, no matter how ludicrous that belief, is one thing but to assume all beliefs should be taught with equivalence is insanity.
Are we to only mention dentistry if we discuss tooth fairies or obstetrics if we talk about storks?

Danton, london,

Ceationism should be taught in the context of science as it was understood 2,500 years ago, just as evolution (still a theory) was developed in the light of scientific knowledge 150 years ago. The creationist theory in Geneis follows a sequence remarkably similar to that of the Big Bang theory.

E W Smith, Taunton,

As a Head of Psychology, and a scientist, I would love creationism to be a part of our teaching agenda. Then we could look at the facts (none) and get to the heart of the matter - why some humans have failed to evolve to the stage where they no longer need such beliefs to make them able to function.

Barry Keylock, Redditch, England

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory? Your leader needs lessons in definition and read up on all the research that IS being done on it. Within this leader is also the misconception that religion or faith is not based on 'scientific' evidence. More reading before writing please.

Tony Thomas, Rochford, UK

Chris Hunt, you obviously haven't been looking very far. Dawkins has, for example, written two books absolutely demolishing that tired old fallacious argument. Just because you don't personally understand something, doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Pete, Leeds,

Mr. Stoveold, if you want to bring up improbable examples to dispute Biblican creationism, perhaps you should also realize that the 'evolution' theory whereby we (people, trees, fish) sprang from some amino acids on a rock flying through space is also highly improbable. Dare I say ridiculous? Yes.

russell, indiana, usa

I would go further than the final sentence.
Children should be taught to respect other people's right to hold superstitious beliefs, but they don't have to respect those beliefs.

Pete Moss, Reading, UK

Everyone tells us there is lots of evidence for evolution but I have never heard an evolutionist deal with the concept of irreducible complexity (which I can understand). When will they deal with this? Why not discuss this and argue about it in science lessons?

Chris Hunt, Worcester,

Children should not be taught to respect religious beliefs. The beliefs contradict one another, the scientific evidence (a 6-10,000 year old Earth??) and common decency (a good god who raised up an army knowing this would force women to cook and eat their own children
(Deut. 28:49-57, Lam. 4:10)

Robert Stovold, Brighton, United Kingdom

There is nothing to fear but ignorance! Scientists need to have the confidence to engage with creationist and ID ideas and explain why evolution wins - and the place for that IS in the science class. Once that's done creationism belongs in comparative religion alongside other religious myths!

andrew holden, oxford, uk

"But the facts of biology I know from plant breeding research mean that evolution just doesn't make sense."

Why don't you write a paper about your 'discovery', then sit back and await your Nobel prize, worldwide fame, and virtually unlimited research grants, rather than just posting about it?

John Smith, London,

Belief in a Creator is not creationism and belief in a Creator is not the problem. The real problem is the history and doctrine of organised religions, much of which seems to lack both morals and ethics. Many accept a Supreme Being but reject unproven doctrine because much of it is provably absurd.

Keith, Rayleigh, England

While evolution is almost certainly correct, it does not explain how the universe came to exist. There are only three possibilites for that - it was brought into being by something outside of itself (a "creator"), it created itself out of the most absolute nothing or it has existed eternally.

robert, velez rubio, spain

Great amounts of humility from creationists.
You can always tell someone without a shred of substance to their ideas when they start saying..'if only they would use a different tone of voice when they describe their theory'. OK they use a polite tone (in your view). Then you agree. Some science.

Sue, Dundee,

Having studied biology and chemistry to A Level at school, what is lacking in the science classes is a discussion of the origin of life on Earth. We should be taught that life may have been seeded here by comet, meteorite or asteriod (spores and bacteria).

Michael Lewis, St Albans, Herts

Why cannot intelligent design be the starting point for a meaningful debate about the origins and mechanisms of life rather than let it be constantly hijacked by biblical literalists, and therefore letting the whole concept of intelligent design be summarily dismissed as cranky?

Bob Ericson, Tewkesbury, Glos,

Creationism is untrue science as most Christian scientists say - see Professor Conway-Morris of Cambridge.
But at the same time many advocates of evolution lack any humility in presenting the theory. Like any theory it is provisional and further evidence will rquire it to be adjusted .

j pullen, st ives, cambs

The various specific creation stories should only be discussed in science classes if teachers are allowed to use them to illustrate "argument by counterexample".

We have ample evidence where we have repeated evolution by natural selection in breeding domestic animals and plants.

Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada

Ernst Mayr may have said “If you don't accept evolution, then most of the facts of biology just don't make sense.”
But the facts of biology I know from plant breeding research mean that evolution just doesn't make sense.
Perhaps some of these should be taught to children in science class.

Martin, Skye,